1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON LINDE CERAMICS PLANT

+ + + + +

MONDAY

FEBRUARY 14, 2011

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 11:00 a.m., Genevieve 

Roessler, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

JAMES E. LOCKEY, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE

ROBERT ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

ANTOINETTE BONSIGNORE

CHRIS CRAWFORD, DCAS

JASON DAVIS, ORAU Team

MONICA HARRISON-MAPLES, ORAU Team

EMILY HOWELL, HHS

JEFFREY KOTSCH, DOL

JENNY LIN, HHS

LINDA LUX

JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

JIM NETON, DCAS

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A

LAVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU Team
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Page

I. Welcome and roll call/ 4 

introductions

II. Summary of December 7 Linde 9 

WG Teleconference and 

pertinent portion of January 12

ABRWH meeting

III. Discussion of "Revised SEC 10

Petition Evaluation Report"

IV. Presentation of any modifications 13

to dose reconstruction by NIOSH

and discussion by SC&A and WG

V. Discussion of ABRWH Chair Melius's 25

concerns about lack of information

on activities at the site

VI. Plans for presentation at 44

February 24 ABRWH meeting
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 11:02 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Linde 

5 Work Group.

6 Let's begin with roll call with 

7 Board Members, beginning with the Chair.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen 

9 Roessler, Chair of the Work Group, no conflict 

10 with Linde.

11 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

12 MEMBER LOCKEY: Jim Lockey, no 

13 conflict.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach, no 

15 conflict.

16 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, no 

17 conflict.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. And any other 

19 Board Members?

20 MEMBER FIELD: Have you got me?

21 MR. KATZ: And Bill Field.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Did you say Dr. 
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Field came on?

2 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Dr. Field is on, Bill 

4 is on.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: Good.

6 MR. KATZ: Let's go to NIOSH ORAU 

7 team.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: This is Chris 

9 Crawford, no conflict.

10 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, no 

11 conflict, NIOSH.

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: LaVon Rutherford, 

13 no conflict, NIOSH.

14 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU 

15 team, no conflict.

16 MS. HARRISON-MAPLES: Monica 

17 Harrison-Maples, ORAU team, no conflict.

18 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. Two of you 

19 trampled each other. I heard Monica Maples, 

20 but I didn't hear the other.

21 MR. DAVIS: Jason Davis, ORAU 

22 team, no conflict.
6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Very good. 

2 And SC&A team?

3 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no 

4 conflict.

5 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, no 

6 conflict.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, 

8 SC&A, no conflict.

9 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Very good.

10 Federal officials, HHS or other agencies, or 

11 contractors to the feds?

12 MS. LIN: This is Jenny Lin, HHS.

13 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS.

14 DR. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 

15 DOE.

16 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch, 

17 Department of Labor.

18 MR. KATZ: Very good. Thank you 

19 and welcome. And last but not least, 

20 petitioners or members of the public?

21 MS. BONSIGNORE: Antoinette 

22 Bonsignore, Linde SEC petitioner.
7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MS. LUX: Linda Lux, petitioner.

2 MR. KATZ: Very good. Have I 

3 missed anyone?

4 (No response.)

5 Okay. Thank you and welcome all.

6 Let me remind everyone on the line 

7 to mute your phone except when you're 

8 addressing the group. You can press *6 if you 

9 don't have a mute button, and *6 to come off 

10 of mute. And please don't put the call on 

11 hold at any point, but hang up and dial back 

12 in if you need to leave.

13 We have an agenda which was posted 

14 just this morning but distributed to the Work 

15 Group Members again on Friday, I believe. So, 

16 Gen, it's your agenda.

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Thank you, 

18 Ted.

19 This is Gen. A reminder to 

20 participants -- and I'm pleased that all of 

21 the key participants are on the phone -- we 

22 are discussing SEC-00107, Linde Ceramics. 
8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 This covers the period January 1, 1954, 

2 through July 31, 2006.

3 This has been called the Linde 

4 residual radiation period. Sometimes it is 

5 also referred to as the renovation or 

6 remediation period. At least a part of it 

7 covers that time period.

8 I will remind you, in case you 

9 want to refer to a timeline, there is one in 

10 the new Evaluation Report on page 17. I found 

11 that quite helpful, and it's something that, 

12 as we go through this and as we go through the 

13 Board presentation, we might want to have it 

14 in front of us.

15 I would also like to ask the Work 

16 Group that we should focus on this petition. 

17 And on -- and I think sometimes we, too, need 

18 to remind ourselves of the rule that we are 

19 obligated to follow, and sometimes we might 

20 need to -- I found it rather refreshing myself 

21 to go back this weekend and review some things 

22 in it.
9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So our goal for the meeting today 

2 is to evaluate the new materials and 

3 information, and then to plan our presentation 

4 for the face-to-face Board meeting on February 

5 24th.

6 The agenda -- I think everybody on 

7 the Work Group has this. I was proud I got on 

8 the CDC computer on Friday and was able to 

9 send it to Ted, and then it seemed that CDC's 

10 email crashed. But I did send it to the Work 

11 Group Members, and I think Ted said it was 

12 posted this morning.

13 So the first thing, do the Work 

14 Group Members or others have any additions or 

15 changes to the agenda?

16 (No response.)

17 Either everybody is on mute or 

18 there are none, so we'll proceed. I thought 

19 it would help to do a very brief summary of 

20 the December 7th -- of our Work Group 

21 teleconference, and then the -- a summary of 

22 the pertinent portion of the January 12th 
10 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Board meeting. And the transcript, by the 

2 way, for the -- our teleconference is on the 

3 website.

4 The main issue on December 7th 

5 that the Work Group discussed was how to bound 

6 radon doses in the Linde conveyor tunnel. 

7 NIOSH presented an approach to use radon 

8 concentrations in basements. A rather 

9 extensive database was found. This is in an 

10 area near the site. We discussed this in11 depth.

12 I think SC&A agreed with the 

13 approach and agreed that this would be a 

14 plausible bounding method. Therefore NIOSH 

15 was instructed to revise this methodology in 

16 their revised Evaluation Report.

17 Then even though that was the main 

18 issue that we had to discuss, we also -- even 

19 though the bounding doses in the Linde 

20 buildings had been discussed at earlier 

21 meetings, and NIOSH and SC&A had agreed on 

22 this bounding approach, our Work Group Members 
11 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Mike Gibson and Josie Beach said they were 

2 still concerned about the approach.

3 We discussed some of this, and in 

4 my review of our transcript and minutes and in 

5 some of the comments I made, my conclusion was 

6 that many of Mike Gibson's concerns were 

7 overarching concerns. And this -- we will 

8 give him and Josie time when we present our 

9 views to the Board in Augusta on the Linde 

10 petition -- time to express those concerns.

11 So then on January 12th at our 

12 Board meeting -- and this transcript is also 

13 on the website -- the pages 15 through 38, if 

14 you want to look those over, deal with Linde. 

15 At that time, NIOSH reported that they had 

16 withdrawn earlier approaches to bounding radon 

17 doses in the Linde tunnels, and they are going 

18 to be using what I described before, the 

19 basement radon measurements, and some 

20 adjustment factors based on the radium 

21 measured in soil from the site to come up with 

22 their method.
12 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 They also agreed to modify the 

2 method of external -- excuse me, internal 

3 exposure in the building during this 

4 renovation period.

5 So during this -- then the Board 

6 meeting, because of these revisions, we 

7 decided then to delay any action until after 

8 NIOSH had a revised Evaluation Report, after 

9 SC&A had a chance to review it, and after our 

10 Work Group could schedule a meeting -- and 

11 this is it, today -- so that we could decide 

12 what to present at the next Board meeting in 

13 February.

14 So we do have the revised 

15 Evaluation Report. I'll comment that, Chris, 

16 you and your team I thought put together a 

17 very concise and readable document. 

18 So I think the next thing on the 

19 agenda, then, unless anybody has any questions 

20 about -- or comments about what I have just 

21 said, is to ask NIOSH to present their report. 

22 And then I haven't seen a written response to 
13 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 it from SC&A, but I hear Steve on the line and 

2 Bob Anigstein. So I assume they will follow 

3 with their comments. And I'm done talking.

4 MR. CRAWFORD: Gen, to what extent 

5 do you want me to go over the modified ER? 

6 This is Chris Crawford.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, I certainly 

8 don't think we want to go over the whole 

9 thing, but I think -- and everybody has had it 

10 and has been reminded to read it. I think 

11 just hit the high points on your revised 

12 approach to bounding the radon doses, and, you 

13 know, I think just summarize that as a start.

14 MR. CRAWFORD: All right. I do 

15 need to point out that actually it was SC&A 

16 and Bob Anigstein that came up with the basic 

17 radon model that we are now using. All we did 

18 was take Bob's model and we added data to the 

19 data set. That is, bore holes that were near 

20 the tunnels that we did use and that Bob 

21 actually used, some of the data hadn't been 

22 included on the original run.
14 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Also there was a minor correction 

2 to be made because Bob had inadvertently used 

3 the Niagara County instead of the Erie County 

4 basement radon levels. With those two things 

5 added, we ran Bob's model and came up with --

6 it's a little overly precise, but 99.31 

7 picocuries per liter as a bounding level of 

8 radon in the tunnel from the soil.

9 So if there's any discussion about 

10 that, we could do that now, Gen. 

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, if you --

12 MR. CRAWFORD: We also -- go 

13 ahead.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: The thing we 

15 might do as you go through this is have SC&A 

16 interact or comment as you present 

17 information.

18 DR. OSTROW: Gen, this is Steve 

19 Ostrow. I don't think that's really 

20 necessary. We reviewed the new ER and the 

21 other two documents that came along with it, 

22 and we can just make a comment at the very end 
15 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 of his presentation, I think.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. That 

3 sounds good.

4 MR. CRAWFORD: Other than that, 

5 Gen, I think the main change to the ER was we 

6 did go back and we did get all of the 

7 individual Linde tunnel drawings that we had

8 discussed, but didn't have the actual drawings 

9 in the last teleconference. 

10 And we believe that they show 

11 unequivocally that certain sections of the 

12 tunnels were constructed at different times. 

13 I think that's well laid out in the revised 

14 ER. I could go over it, if you like.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: No, I don't think 

16 that would be necessary unless someone has 

17 questions.

18 MR. CRAWFORD: One thing we -- we 

19 haven't mentioned, we did get an email from 

20 Dr. Melius.

21 DR. NETON: Yes, I was just going 

22 to suggest that we talk about the other --
16 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 this is Jim Neton, by the way. The other 

2 modification that was made to the ER was to --

3 I think we had vacuuming operations in there 

4 originally, and we revised it to include this 

5 pneumatic hammering value, which we had come 

6 to that conclusion during our deliberations in 

7 previous Working Groups. That is this 2.3 MAC 

8 value that we would apply the continuous value 

9 throughout the so-called renovation period. 

10 And the reason for that was it 

11 seemed to us to be a better indication of what 

12 might be in the renovation period because it 

13 was jackhammering of previously clean 

14 concrete. They went back and -- after it had 

15 already been sandblasted, I believe, they went 

16 back and re-jackhammered it and ended up with 

17 this 2.3 MAC, which I believe was the highest 

18 value measure of the jackhammering operations.

19 And since there were worker 

20 statements to the fact that jackhammering was 

21 an operation that did occur during the D&D --

22 or the renovation period, we felt that that 
17 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 was a fairly representative value that we 

2 would use for that -- reconstructions during 

3 that time.

4 I think that's the gist of all 

5 that has changed in the ER.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen. A 

7 timeline on this -- I think Dr. Melius's 

8 concerns about the lack of information on the 

9 site, which I have on the agenda, but we --

10 later, but we can bring it in any time, I 

11 think -- I think he sent that before he saw 

12 the new ER. Is that true?

13 DR. NETON: You know, I'm not 

14 clear on that although Dr. Melius's email had 

15 some items that I didn't quite understand. 

16 For example, he referred to a reduction in a 

17 factor of two to account for the cleanup. 

18 That was actually -- that's what 

19 was used in the previous ER that -- it was --

20 involved vacuum cleaning, and we originally 

21 had reduced that by a factor of two to 

22 accommodate the fact that it had been cleaned. 
18 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 That's no longer in the ER, so I was a little 

2 bit confused by Dr. Melius's email as to what 

3 he had read to come to his conclusions.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen. I'm 

5 wondering how we should approach this. We do 

6 need to talk about Dr. Melius's comments and 

7 how we are going to address them, but I'm 

8 wondering if we should finish the revised ER 

9 first and have comments from SC&A. What you 

10 have just said, Jim, may apply to Dr. Melius's 

11 concerns, but let's separate it out. Let's 

12 finish this discussion and then go on a little 

13 bit later with Dr. Melius's concerns.

14 So I think if that completes your 

15 summary, then we should go to Steve and Bob 

16 and SC&A's response.

17 DR. OSTROW: Okay. Gen, this is 

18 Steve. Not much to say. We reviewed NIOSH's 

19 Revision 1 of their ER, and we reviewed the 

20 other documents that they sent us around the 

21 same time. And we support their approach. We 

22 have no comments other than that we support 
19 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 their approach.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: So that includes 

3 the entire approach for bounding for the 

4 buildings and the conveyor tunnel.

5 DR. OSTROW: Yes, the utility 

6 tunnel.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: I mean the --

8 excuse me, I did that once before already, 

9 too.

10 DR. OSTROW: Okay.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: Thank you, Steve.

12 DR. OSTROW: Yes, the whole 

13 business -- we agree with your --

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Okay.

15 DR. OSTROW: John or Bob, do you 

16 have any comments on that? I think that's our 

17 conclusion, right?

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's our 

19 conclusion. This is Bob Anigstein. There was 

20 a -- there are some small differences. The 

21 most important difference is that the -- our 

22 original analysis used the bore hole -- the 
20 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 radium assays from bore holes that NIOSH had 

2 identified were in the vicinity of the tunnel. 

3 We didn't do any -- you know, didn't check 

4 any others. We only selected the ones that 

5 NIOSH said were in the vicinity of the tunnel.

6 Now NIOSH said they used -- they 

7 used all of the bore holes, and the result was 

8 somewhat lower, about a factor of two lower 

9 radium readings on average. But we decided 

10 this is sort of within the realm of analyst --

11 within the area of analyst judgment. So we 

12 are -- we are willing to go along with that.

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Work Group 

14 Members, do you have any comments or concerns?

15 MEMBER FIELD: Jim, this --

16 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, go ahead, Mike.

17 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill Field. 

18 Jim, I just had some questions about, you 

19 know, the choice of what samples. It does 

20 make a difference of about 100 picocuries per 

21 liter, it looks like, depending on which ones 

22 you use. Could you give us any insights into 
21 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 why you used the ones you chose versus the 

2 ones SC&A first used?

3 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. 

4 Chris, I think, can answer that question.

5 MR. CRAWFORD: Chris Crawford. 

6 Dr. Field, actually, Bob Anigstein and SC&A 

7 used all of the data that I originally sent 

8 them. So it wasn't that they chose the data.

9 The only change that we made was 

10 using the same bore holes, the same set of 

11 bore holes, we had data down to 11 feet in 

12 some cases. Originally, we only sent the data 

13 for the top four feet of soil. We decided 

14 later, since it was a biased sample to begin 

15 with, that we might as well use the full 

16 column bore hole readings. That was all that 

17 was added to the data that we had.

18 MEMBER FIELD: And can you refresh 

19 my memory, how deep are the tunnels again?

20 MR. CRAWFORD: The tunnels are 10 

21 to 12 feet deep for the most part.

22 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. Okay. Thank 
22 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 you.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: You're welcome.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Bill, this 

4 is Gen. Does that -- do you have any 

5 concerns, after hearing that, with the 

6 approach, then, that NIOSH proposes to use?

7 MEMBER FIELD: No, I think it's 

8 reasonable with the bounding they performed. 

9 I think it's very reasonable.

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Then I 

11 think Josie had a question.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. I just had --

13 back on the utility tunnels. We had 

14 discussions at our last Work Group meeting 

15 about the drawings and clarification of the 

16 drawings of when the tunnels were built, and I 

17 know Antoinette had some issues. And I have 

18 some concerns with those drawings, and I know 

19 that Jim had talked about possibly getting 

20 permits.

21 And I guess I still have some 

22 concerns about when those tunnels were 
23 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 constructed, and it looks like they have come 

2 to the conclusion that they had earlier stated 

3 on the tunnels, that some of them were built 

4 early and some of them came later. So I'm 

5 still concerned about that.

6 MR. CRAWFORD: Gen, this is Chris 

7 Crawford. Do you want me to address that?

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, I wish you 

9 would.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, I did post in 

11 the Board's area the tunnel drawings, so I'm 

12 going to refer to the drawings, but you can 

13 pull them up yourselves and expand the 

14 drawings and see the text, to the extent you 

15 wish.

16 And I would direct the -- your 

17 attention to the 1957 Linde tunnel drawing. 

18 For the record, it's -- the drawing number is 

19 A-360164. And there are two quite significant 

20 features I would like to draw to your 

21 attention.

22 In the central lower part of the 
24 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 drawing, there are some dashed lines. They 

2 are very faint in the whole drawing, but if 

3 you blow it up it's quite easy to see. And 

4 they are labeled Future Extension of Tunnel, 

5 and that future extension of tunnel is the 

6 western extension of the tunnel from Junction 

7 Box 1. That's an indication that that tunnel 

8 did not exist in 1957 at the time this drawing 

9 was made.

10 Also the other thing that I want 

11 to direct your attention to is that there are 

12 many features labeled on the drawing, but 

13 conspicuously absent is Junction Box Number 6 

14 in any tunnel going to the south towards 

15 Building 8, which is -- these are construction 

16 drawings, after all, and they showed old 

17 abandoned sewer lines, and everything that was 

18 there was shown, believe me.

19 But that's missing, and no tunnel 

20 shown to the south. I think it's very good 

21 evidence that those tunnels did not exist in 

22 '57. Furthermore, in the 1961 drawings, we 
25 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 see that those tunnels are drawn in. We 

2 believe they were built in 1961, and I invite 

3 you to look at the 1961 drawing as well for 

4 that reason.

5 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. No, I 

6 appreciate that. I have looked at them, and 

7 the central -- the dotted lines you explained, 

8 I'll look for that. Thank you.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Any other 

10 questions or comments from Work Group Members?

11 DR. NETON: Hey, Gen, this is Jim. 

12 I'd just like to point out that the existence 

13 of the tunnels really isn't necessarily 

14 relevant to our current discussion. It's more 

15 relevant to the other SEC-154 Class.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Jim, this is Josie. 

17 I do understand that, but it was mentioned, 

18 so I thought I'd go ahead and bring it up 

19 because I did have a question.

20 DR. NETON: Yes.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Thanks.

22 DR. NETON: No problem.
26 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen. 

2 That's pertinent when we get to the Board 

3 meeting, too, is if the question comes up, I 

4 think we need to keep pointing out that it's 

5 -- it really isn't a question for the SEC 

6 under discussion.

7 Okay. Any other comments? 

8 (No response.)

9 There probably will be some from a 

10 number of you once we talk about Dr. Melius's 

11 email, and -- which everyone has. Are we 

12 ready to move on to that discussion?

13 MEMBER FIELD: I think so.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: And then after we 

15 finish that, then we will try to wrap up what 

16 the Work Group Members think we should do with 

17 regard to our presentation to the Board. 

18 I did forward to you -- I believe 

19 I did, to the Work Group Members, and I think 

20 you all were copied on it originally when Dr. 

21 Melius sent out his email -- his concerns --

22 and I've highlighted on here, I'll kind of 
27 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 outline this, and then we can just discuss 

2 from that -- that he says that he is primarily 

3 concerned with the part of the timeline that 

4 we call the remediation time.

5 And he says -- oh, let me see if I 

6 can find it -- because there is lack of 

7 information on the activities at the site, he 

8 is questioning the extent of the time period 

9 involved, the number of workers, type of 

10 renovation activities, involvement of workers 

11 from other parts of the facility -- let's see, 

12 I'm still not getting to the bottom line here.

13 What he's questioning is actually 

14 coming up with the bounding approaches for 

15 this particular period of time. And I think 

16 Jim addressed -- Jim Neton addressed this in 

17 part in the -- by discussing the new ER and 

18 talking about using probably a much more 

19 claimant-friendly approach to doing this by 

20 using values from the pneumatic hammering 

21 during the earlier decontamination part of the 

22 site.
28 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Have I summarized that okay, or 

2 does somebody else want to give a shot at it?

3 (No response.)

4 It doesn't sound like it. 

5 MEMBER LOCKEY: Gen, Jim Lockey. 

6 Can you hear me?

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: Sure.

8 MEMBER LOCKEY: Okay. When I read 

9 Jim's letter, I was more struck with -- not 

10 struck, but thinking he was saying that we 

11 couldn't do dose reconstruction with 

12 sufficient accuracy because there wasn't 

13 enough sampling available. And even though we 

14 were taking a claimant-friendly approach, dose 

15 reconstruction was not going to be an accurate 

16 dose reconstruction.

17 Now I really don't know how to 

18 address that. The only way you really get 

19 accurate dose reconstruction on each worker is 

20 to have each worker monitored on a continuous 

21 basis, and that's the only way you'll get 

22 accurate data on any workplace situation. 
29 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 So I'm not sure how to address 

2 that, but I thought that was the question he 

3 was asking.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, let's see. 

5 Jim Neton or Chris Crawford, what is your 

6 interpretation of his concern?

7 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I 

8 would agree with Dr. Lockey's assessment of 

9 Dr. Melius's concern, that it wasn't that we 

10 couldn't -- we didn't have some sort of a 

11 bound that we could put there, but it was is 

12 that a reasonable bound to use for all workers 

13 in all buildings, that sort of thing. 

14 And that's -- I'm not sure how one 

15 addresses that. This is not unlike what we do 

16 when we use 95th percentiles for all workers 

17 at certain sites or, you know, any time we 

18 can't position a worker at a time and place, 

19 we very often resort to upper bounds, full 

20 well knowing that not all workers actually 

21 participated in all of those activities. But 

22 it's claimant favorable. So I'm not exactly 
30 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 sure where to go with that.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: And I would sort of 

3 agree with that. That question sort of throws 

4 into question even using a 95th percentile as 

5 an upper bound because it probably does not 

6 reflect accurately what dose a person got. It 

7 probably overestimates the dose by a factor of 

8 10 to 100. Therefore that would not be 

9 considered an accurate dose reconstruction for 

10 that individual.

11 The only way I know that can be 

12 resolved is in these situations, if you want 

13 that degree of accuracy, every person has to 

14 have personal monitoring data.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen. 

16 Would it be fair to say that he is saying that 

17 this is not a plausible upper bound for 

18 everyone at the site?

19 MR. CRAWFORD: I don't think he's 

20 saying that. I think what he is saying is 

21 that it's not accurate, and that there are 

22 probably people substantially lower.
31 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: And so it seems 

2 like this has been done at other sites. It 

3 would be -- like I call it often an 

4 overarching problem. If this is a problem at 

5 this site, then certainly it would be at other 

6 sites -- other sites that have even been --

7 the decision has been made.

8 MR. CRAWFORD: It would be a 

9 universal problem across the whole industry.

10 MEMBER FIELD: Gen, this is Bill 

11 Field. I read his questions, I guess, a lot 

12 differently. I don't think he has seen this 

13 one with the new assumptions. I think what --

14 from my perspective what he was asking is 

15 could they have been involved in some type of 

16 activities where they would have had higher 

17 exposure than what the assumptions were that 

18 were being used? That was my interpretation.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: That was what --

20 that was the way I interpreted it, too. And 

21 that's why I thought perhaps the revision to 

22 the ER to include the pneumatic hammering 
32 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 might take care of that. I don't know that --

2 MEMBER LOCKEY: Gen, I would refer 

3 you and Bill to the bottom of his -- I don't 

4 know, the second paragraph or third paragraph, 

5 the one that starts, "Given the paucity of 

6 information and data," the very last sentence 

7 in his email, "Simply being able to apply 

8 worst-case exposure scenarios to everyone at 

9 the site during this time period may satisfy 

10 our policy for being claimant-friendly, but it 

11 does not necessarily justify the need to be 

12 able to do dose reconstruction with sufficient 

13 accuracy."

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. So that --

15 that then supports your conclusion as to what 

16 his concerns were.

17 MEMBER LOCKEY: Yes.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: I'm wondering, 

19 have we actually gotten two communications 

20 from him? I have another one, and I'm looking 

21 at that now to see if that's -- if that's 

22 different. This was one that he sent out on 
33 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 January 10th, and here he says, "I have two 

2 questions on Linde."

3 MEMBER BEACH: That's the original 

4 one, Gen. This is Josie.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. And so how 

6 --

7 MEMBER BEACH: There is two.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: And I'm looking 

9 at that quickly here. Without -- he says, 

10 "Without knowledge of the renovation 

11 activities, could you be underestimating 

12 exposures for the Building 30 workers and at 

13 the same time overestimating the exposures for 

14 workers in other buildings?" He says, "While 

15 we can argue you are bounding the dose, that 

16 bound must be plausible."

17 I'm not really clear on what his 

18 concerns are, and I'm not quite sure how we 

19 should handle it.

20 MR. KATZ: Gen, this is Ted. I 

21 would just suggest you be prepared to handle 

22 either side of the question.
34 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. There 

2 was --

3 MR. KATZ: That seems like the 

4 easiest way.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, I know. 

6 There was some communication on email that I 

7 saw between Dr. Melius and SC&A, and there was 

8 some talk about a technical call. Did that 

9 ever happen, or does anybody from SC&A have 

10 any clarification on that?

11 DR. OSTROW: No, we didn't have 

12 any technical call because it's not really the 

13 right venue. Technical calls are usually 

14 between SC&A and NIOSH and involve some 

15 technical issue where we don't understand what 

16 they're doing, and they don't understand what 

17 we're doing, so it's a clarification. 

18 We don't -- I don't think we have 

19 technical calls with Board Members, in 

20 general. So we didn't have such a thing. And 

21 I don't know if it's really the place of SC&A 

22 to answer this.
35 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MEMBER LOCKEY: Hey, Gen, Jim 

2 Lockey. Let's go through his email because 

3 there is a couple of things I would like to 

4 know. I think he raises some questions that I 

5 need to be clarified on. Maybe, Steve, you 

6 could do it for me.

7 But in relationship to the Linde 

8 site, when we are talking about Building 30, 

9 how many other buildings besides Building 30 

10 are we talking about in relationship to this 

11 SEC?

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: Chris could 

13 probably answer that.

14 DR. NETON: Chris Crawford. Yes, 

15 I'm sorry.

16 MR. CRAWFORD: Basically, we are 

17 talking about the four buildings in the 

18 ceramics plant area, plus Building 14 also 

19 called the Tonawanda Laboratory, among other 

20 things.

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: And Building 30 

22 was chosen because?
36 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. CRAWFORD: It was the most 

2 heavily contaminated of all the ceramics plant 

3 buildings, and it was where the primary 

4 uranium ore processing was done, which 

5 explains the contamination level.

6 MEMBER LOCKEY: And we have good 

7 documentation that it was the heaviest 

8 contaminated building?

9 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes. It is stated 

10 in several reports, both contemporaneous 

11 reports back in the '50s and also in the 

12 FUSRAP reports later.

13 MEMBER BEACH: If you look on the 

14 ER on page 14, it lists all of the buildings 

15 out --

16 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right. I know 

17 that. I'm just trying to run through what Jim 

18 was running through in my mind. 

19 In relationship, then, to 

20 Building 30, we can't document which workers 

21 went in and out of which buildings, is that 

22 correct?
37 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. CRAWFORD: That's basically 

2 correct. Apparently, workers traveled quite a 

3 bit through the plant. And, of course, we are 

4 dealing with a 50-year period here. Workers 

5 are reassigned regularly, too, so no, we can't 

6 place individual workers and individual 

7 positions within buildings.

8 DR. NETON: This is not unlike we 

9 have done at almost every other site.

10 MEMBER LOCKEY: It would be sort 

11 of like General Electric, right?

12 DR. NETON: Exactly.

13 MEMBER LOCKEY: Exactly. Okay. 

14 So when we get to, then, the question about 

15 renovation activities in Building 30, there is 

16 very little documentation of those activities. 

17 And when I read the documents, there wasn't a 

18 lot of -- there wasn't a lot of paperwork 

19 documentation that a lot of renovation went 

20 on, but I guess the workers thought that a lot 

21 of renovation went on. Is that correct? Am I 

22 reading that right?
38 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 MR. CRAWFORD: That is correct. 

2 In my reading of the worker testimony, there 

3 is one incident that seems to stand out as 

4 well described -- a 1966, I think, movement of 

5 an industrial shears, which was, I think, a 

6 six-month project. The rest is testimony that 

7 basically there was a lot of work done in the 

8 buildings from '62 to '68 in particular.

9 NIOSH did discover one 

10 construction permit for a very small addition 

11 to Building 30 that was done in 1968. We 

12 don't actually know if the work was done, but 

13 the permit was issued. So those are the only 

14 two fact points we have -- a '66 movement of a 

15 machine and a '68 building permit. Everything 

16 else is a little vague.

17 DR. NETON: But we do know for a 

18 fact that jackhammering did occur because 

19 there is testimony in various proceedings to 

20 that effect.

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: Okay. So then 

22 when Jim raises the question of the extent of 
39 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 the time period that workers were involved, 

2 the type of renovation activities, involvement 

3 of other workers from other parts of the 

4 facility, then overall, I guess the approach 

5 we have taken, as I understand it, is we have 

6 taken the worst-case situation in Building 30, 

7 the worst type of renovation that probably can 

8 happen -- that was the jackhammering and the 

9 generation of dust -- and assuming that all of 

10 the workers from all of the facilities had the 

11 potential for that exposure over that period 

12 of time.

13 DR. NETON: That's correct.

14 MEMBER LOCKEY: Okay. So then his 

15 real question is, is that of sufficient 

16 accuracy?

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, I think his 

18 question is would the exposures be 

19 underestimated in Building 30? I think that's 

20 really the pertinent question. His question 

21 about overestimating in the other buildings, 

22 you know, that's a precedent. That is done 
40 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 sort of routinely, and I don't think that 

2 would be -- to me, that's not the major 

3 question to address.

4 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right, Gen. You 

5 know, for me it's confusing. I'm not sure --

6 I thought he was concerned about sufficient 

7 accuracy. Even though we're being claimant8 friendly, we may -- it's not an accurate 

9 reconstruction because it may be too high.

10 But you're right, he may be 

11 thinking that we don't have enough data to 

12 claim that we are upper bounding it. But it 

13 sounds like SC&A and NIOSH thinks we do have 

14 enough data.

15 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill Field. 

16 It seems like if jackhammering occurred --

17 and that's documented -- Jim or anyone else, 

18 can you think of any other type of activity 

19 that would have created a higher exposure?

20 DR. NETON: Not once the -- not

21 once the building had been cleaned. See, we 

22 had some fairly detailed surveys while they 
41 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 were -- while they were deconning the 

2 building. And sandblasting, certainly, of 

3 contaminated concrete that had not been 

4 cleaned is much higher. I mean, that's a 

5 fact.

6 But of the other activities that 

7 remain once the material has been cleaned 

8 through sandblasting and vacuuming and such, 

9 the highest value that would exist would be 

10 the jackhammering of the previously cleaned 

11 materials, which is what we used. And I 

12 believe we used the highest of those -- of the 

13 jackhammering values. There were other 

14 jackhammerings, but we took the highest one, 

15 which was 2.3 times the maximum allowable 

16 concentration.

17 MEMBER FIELD: And the assumption 

18 was for Building 30 and others that that 

19 jackhammering occurred 24 hours a day.

20 DR. NETON: Well, yes, or every 

21 hour a worker was --

22 MEMBER FIELD: Every hour that 
42 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 there was produced that concentration.

2 DR. NETON: Yes.

3 MEMBER FIELD: So if anything 

4 seems implausible to me it's that, that you 

5 would have those concentrations over a 24-hour 

6 period. But, you know, I guess that gets into 

7 the gray area of what's plausible.

8 DR. NETON: Right.

9 MEMBER LOCKEY: This is Jim 

10 Lockey. Bill, you're right, it's not --

11 that's not plausible, but it does set a 

12 claimant-friendly upper bound on it. But the 

13 question is is it accurate, right? And that's 

14 why I thought that's what Jim was asking.

15 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

16 The essence of the issue really goes to OTIB17 70. In other words, there has been -- in 

18 effect, the concern is whether or not this 

19 fundamental strategy of using data collected 

20 during the D&D period -- 1953 selecting that 

21 data in a way that you feel could be applied 

22 to the renovation period.
43 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 It is a classic OTIB-70 approach 

2 with a little twist to it to make it even a 

3 little bit more conservative because you are 

4 holding it flat. And I really think what you 

5 are going to is the fundamental philosophy, or 

6 there may even be what you consider to be a 

7 policy issue, whether that basic approach to 

8 deal with residual periods in general, because 

9 residual periods very often have very little 

10 if no data until the FUSRAP program starts.

11 And NIOSH has come up with a 

12 strategy, with the OTIB-70 strategy, and there 

13 is, you know, many ways in which that could be 

14 implemented. But it is a fundamental approach 

15 to deal with time periods where you have very 

16 little data because at the time they felt 

17 there really was very little potential for 

18 exposure.

19 And whether or not that approach 

20 is something that satisfies and it's almost 

21 your sense of sufficient accuracy within the 

22 context of the regulations. And, of course, 
44 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 now it's really your interpretation of whether 

2 this meets what you feel is a threshold 

3 criteria of what sufficient accuracy is.

4 I wanted to just throw that in 

5 because the very issue that we're discussing 

6 goes toward OTIB-70 and that fundamental 

7 philosophy. And it is going to be very 

8 important as it applies to many, many other 

9 sites.

10 DR. NETON: John, this is Jim. I 

11 appreciate that comment. You hit the nail on 

12 the head. And I'd point out that this is not 

13 unlike what TIB-70 does for almost every other 

14 site where we have operational air sample data 

15 during the operations, and we use that to set 

16 the intakes at the start of the residual 

17 period. It's very much akin to that with a 

18 little bit of a twist. But you're absolutely 

19 right.

20 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. Can 

21 I ask a question here, Jim? Or I'm not sure 

22 who can answer it. Has OTIB-70 been reviewed 
45 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 by the Procedures Work Group?

2 DR. NETON: It's under review at 

3 the current time.

4 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Because I've 

5 been trying to find that documentation and 

6 haven't been successful.

7 DR. NETON: There is an SC&A 

8 review that has been produced, I believe. 

9 Yes. And --

10 MEMBER BEACH: -- available on the 

11 NIOSH website or --

12 DR. NETON: No. It should be. If 

13 not, we can certainly make it available. 

14 Now this is the crux of the issue. 

15 TIB-70 has been reviewed, but I will say that 

16 thus far during the review the starting point 

17 of TIB-70, this -- this sort of decay using 

18 data from the operational period has been 

19 favorably reviewed by SC&A.

20 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I'll --

21 MEMBER LOCKEY: -- some other 

22 issues that are on the table, but that one I 
46 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 believe is -- we are in general agreement on.

2 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

3 That's correct. There are many facets to 

4 OTIB-70, only one of which deals with the 

5 subject we are talking about right now, which 

6 is I would say the most important part of 

7 OTIB-70. And we have concurred in that 

8 particular aspect of OTIB-70 -- that is, this 

9 -- the way in which it is being applied here.

10 So there is still lots of 

11 discussion going on regarding OTIB-70, but 

12 this particular aspect of it has been -- in 

13 SC&A's perspective been resolved.

14 MEMBER BEACH: Correct. Okay.

15 DR. NETON: I will mention that I 

16 am slotted to give a presentation on OTIB-70 

17 at the upcoming Advisory Board meeting. That 

18 was requested by, I believe, Dr. Melius.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. This is Ted. 

20 And that's on the first day in the morning.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen. Our 

22 Work Group report is on the second day, I 
47 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 think.

2 MR. KATZ: That's correct. So 

3 everyone will have the advantage of that 

4 discussion before you get to the discussion 

5 about Linde.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: This is Gen. The 

7 other thing it seems that we need to do is to 

8 -- and if this is permissible -- is for me or 

9 someone to contact Dr. Melius and see if we 

10 can ask him to be much more specific, and I 

11 can ask him some questions and give some of 

12 our discussion from today, ask him to be much 

13 more specific about his concerns because I 

14 think we really -- it seems to be the crux of 

15 the whole situation, and we really need to 

16 clarify it at the Board meeting. If we can't 

17 clarify it, I hate to see that we would delay 

18 any further on this.

19 MEMBER LOCKEY: And, Gen, I agree 

20 with that. I think we have to make it -- the 

21 decision for the benefit of the workers rather 

22 in carrying this forward again.
48 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 Chris? This is Jim Lockey.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes.

3 MEMBER LOCKEY: Chris Crawford, 

4 let me ask you a question about the 

5 sandblasting that was done. Was that -- how 

6 complete was that?

7 MR. CRAWFORD: Complete in the --

8 the decon period?

9 MEMBER LOCKEY: Right.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, they did a 

11 building survey. I think they took like 7,000 

12 readings in Buildings 30 and 31 at least. And 

13 where there was areas of high contamination, 

14 they used several methods, including 

15 sandblasting, chipping, jackhammering, I 

16 believe they used blowtorches --

17 DR. NETON: And they also cemented 

18 over areas that couldn't be cleaned.

19 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. They 

20 washed, they vacuumed, they painted and 

21 cemented over, they removed wood and concrete. 

22 DR. NETON: But that's not to say 
49 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 that it was perfectly clean.

2 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. But we do 

3 have quite a good record of the before and 

4 after readings, which indicates that a lot of 

5 material was in fact removed. And what was 

6 left was mostly fixed contamination at fairly 

7 low level.

8 MEMBER LOCKEY: Chris, could it be 

9 possible that you could present that data also 

10 at the next Board meeting?

11 MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, during the 

12 Linde discussion, I would be happy to. Also I 

13 can put the -- I believe it's the Heatherton 

14 document that has that information on it. I 

15 can put that in the Board's area, and I'll 

16 send out a note to everyone.

17 MEMBER LOCKEY: That would be 

18 helpful. I'd like to look at that again.

19 MR. CRAWFORD: It may already be 

20 there, Bomber tells me. But if so, I'll give 

21 you a pointer to it.

22 MEMBER LOCKEY: Perfect.
50 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: Since the last 

2 Board meeting, it seems that the presentation 

3 should revolve around the bounding doses in 

4 the tunnels using this new approach. And 

5 then, also, since the question has come up 

6 about the bounding in the buildings, 

7 particularly Building 30, I think that it 

8 would be appropriate, Chris, for you to 

9 address that as Dr. Lockey has suggested.

10 MR. CRAWFORD: I will be happy to 

11 do that, Gen. You mean at the meeting, I 

12 assume?

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: At the meeting. 

14 I think we have to assume that the Board will 

15 need a review and a summarization of the main 

16 items that might be of concern.

17 MR. CRAWFORD: Again, I'll be 

18 happy to do that.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Does anyone else 

20 have any enlightenment on Dr. Melius's 

21 comments or anything else that we need to 

22 discuss?
51 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 (No response.)

2 Ted, are we inviting petitioners 

3 to make comments at this time? Is that --

4 MR. KATZ: Yes. I mean, I think 

5 you should, but -- and then, I think you 

6 probably need just to wrap up and recap what 

7 it is you're going to be -- who is going to be

8 presenting on what at -- for the Work Group.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Right. I think 

10 that is the main -- main item that we have to 

11 decide is how we are going to make the 

12 presentation, who is going to present at the 

13 Board meeting.

14 So then I think it would be 

15 appropriate at this time for, Antoinette, if 

16 you wish to make some comments.

17 MS. BONSIGNORE: I don't have any 

18 comments to make, Gen. Thank you.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. And Linda 

20 I think is on the line.

21 MS. LUX: Yes. I don't have any 

22 comments right now either. Thank you.
52 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Now I 

2 think what we need to talk about at this point 

3 is the Work Group's evaluation of where we're 

4 at. The last time we had a Work Group meeting 

5 where we actually tried to take a vote we came 

6 out -- with a Work Group of four we came out 

7 two and two. Two of us said that we went 

8 along with the NIOSH recommendation that they 

9 could do dose reconstruction for this period 

10 of time, and I think two have some concerns 

11 about that.

12 Do any of the Work Group Members 

13 want to make comments on where they're at on 

14 their evaluation at this point?

15 (No response.)

16 Was I on mute or something?

17 (Laughter.)

18 MEMBER LOCKEY: No, this is Jim 

19 Lockey. I think that the -- I think we can do 

20 dose reconstruction during this period. I 

21 think that we have answered all the questions 

22 we can answer. I do need some clarification 
53 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 about the direction that Jim is going, and 

2 that will be probably a topic for the Board 

3 meeting as a whole. 

4 But in relationship to this 

5 particular petition, I think we can do dose 

6 reconstruction in a manner that is claimant7 friendly.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: Josie or Mike, do 

9 you have comments?

10 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, this is 

11 Mike. I'm just a little hesitant to give my 

12 comments. It seems that comments made about 

13 people who have experience out in the field 

14 that's practical -- and it's outside the realm 

15 of science -- they seem to be pigeonholed. 

16 So just suffice it to say that I'm 

17 not totally in agreement with using data from 

18 one time period to try to evaluate what went 

19 on in another time period, and that is based 

20 on my pigeonholed experience that when 

21 contamination areas in a renovation -- in a 

22 decon period are just cemented over, as has 
54 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 been discussed, and then those are 

2 jackhammered up in a later time period, you 

3 don't have the same -- you can't use the same 

4 data from one period to another.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: So if we, at the 

6 Board meeting, present a motion that we feel 

7 that dose reconstruction can be done for this 

8 site during those time periods, would you then 

9 -- I would assume that -- well, I'm not going 

10 to assume. Would you vote for or against it? 

11 And I guess based on that, then, we need to 

12 decide how we would handle this.

13 I guess, really, I am kind of 

14 getting you in the corner I think. Mike, what 

15 I would like to ask is when we make this 

16 presentation, would we do it similar to the 

17 presentation we did the last time to the Board 

18 where I try to present, Dr. Lockey and I would 

19 present what we feel the conclusion is, and 

20 then, if you, Mike and Josie, wish to make 

21 comments with your concerns, does that seem 

22 like the right approach, so that the Board has 
55 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 everything on the table to evaluate?

2 MEMBER GIBSON: Well, actually, I 

3 gave my opinions on that before the last Board 

4 meeting. And no one seemed to -- or at least 

5 some Work Group Members didn't seem to agree 

6 with it. 

7 But I think that Wanda did an 

8 excellent job in an older previous Work Group 

9 meeting when the Work Group was divided, she 

10 was the Chair of the Work Group, and she got 

11 up and she presented the timeline and what had 

12 been discussed and that two Members agreed, 

13 two Members disagreed, here's why. It saved 

14 time. And then the Board had the time to just 

15 have an open discussion and ask questions that 

16 they thought were relevant.

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Well, I 

18 think I can do that. I would certainly, 

19 first, contact Dr. Melius and get some 

20 clarification on his comments. But then I 

21 could present pretty much what we presented at 

22 the last Board meeting, but update everything 
56 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 with the new ER. 

2 I will certainly comment that SC&A 

3 has concurred with the approaches that NIOSH 

4 would plan to make, and then I would try to 

5 summarize your comments, Mike, and I think 

6 Josie's comments, if that seems appropriate.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Gen, this is Josie. 

8 I think that sounds like a good approach to 

9 me as well.

10 MEMBER GIBSON: This is Mike. 

11 It's fine with me.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: There's not a lot 

13 of time between now and the Board meeting, but 

14 what I'd like to do is put something together 

15 and pass the -- put a presentation together --

16 no, let me back up a bit -- try to contact Dr. 

17 Melius, then put a presentation together, pass 

18 it by all Work Group Members, and then we'll 

19 go from there.

20 MEMBER LOCKEY: Gen, this is Jim 

21 Lockey. Sounds fine with me.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. And we 
57 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 will also expect NIOSH and SC&A to be on board 

2 to go over a few specific things, just to 

3 present the approach that they are taking, as 

4 we have done in this meeting today.

5 DR. MAURO: Gen, would you be 

6 looking for SC&A just to answer any questions 

7 or to come up to the mic, or Steve could be on 

8 the line, and Bob on the line? If there are 

9 any questions for SC&A, either I -- if I can 

10 handle it, I will, because I will be there. 

11 But Bob and Steve are not planning to attend 

12 the meeting, but they certainly could be on 

13 the phone to answer questions.

14 The reason I ask the question is 

15 if you're looking for an SC&A presentation, 

16 then I would suggest that Steve physically 

17 participate at the meeting and make that 

18 presentation.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: You know, John, 

20 at this point, I don't think it would be 

21 necessary since they could be available by 

22 phone. And I think you have always stepped up 
58 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 to the plate and have been able to summarize 

2 and interpret and comment on any issues. I 

3 would think that would be fine for you to be 

4 at the meeting and have Bob and Steve 

5 available by phone.

6 DR. MAURO: Very good. No, that's 

7 fine. I just wanted to make sure. Okay.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Is there 

9 anything else that we need to discuss, or do 

10 we have a plan?

11 MEMBER LOCKEY: It sounds like we 

12 have a plan.

13 MEMBER FIELD: Gen, when you send 

14 -- this is Bill. When you send out your --

15 what you are going to present at the meeting, 

16 you know, just make sure you give us a time 

17 that you need it back by.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: Oh, sure. Okay. 

19 Will do. Well, let's see, this is Monday, 

20 the -- I think our presentation is a week and 

21 a day from now. I'll try and get something 

22 out within a couple of days and expect a 
59 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 response perhaps by Friday. I'm kind of going 

2 off the top of my head here. People will 

3 probably be traveling already on Monday or 

4 Tuesday of next week.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Right.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: I'll try and --

7 I'll try and get in touch with Dr. Melius 

8 later today or early tomorrow. I'm on travel 

9 today, too. And then get something put 

10 together fairly quickly. Let's say I'll try 

11 and get it out to you by Wednesday.

12 MEMBER BEACH: That sounds 

13 reasonable, Gen. Thanks.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Anything 

15 else that we need to cover?

16 (No response.)

17 Okay. Ted, is there anything that 

18 you can think of?

19 MR. KATZ: No, I think -- I think 

20 you're in good shape. Gen, if you need -- if 

21 you need Dr. Melius's phone number, I can 

22 email it to you.
60 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 CHAIR ROESSLER: I didn't hear 

2 that.

3 MR. KATZ: If you need Dr. 

4 Melius's phone number -- I don't know if you 

5 have it -- I can send it to you.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Oh, that would be 

7 good if you could send it. And I was thinking 

8 of communicating with him by email because - 

9 MR. KATZ: That's fine, too.

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. I think 

11 that's a little bit better. You have written 

12 -- a written record of what you have 

13 discussed.

14 MR. KATZ: Sure. Okay.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: But send me his 

16 phone number anyway, just in case.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. I'll do that.

18 MEMBER LOCKEY: Hey, Ted, Jim 

19 Lockey. Give me a call when you get done, 

20 would you?

21 MR. KATZ: I will do that. Do you 

22 want to email me your number, or do you want 
61 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 to tell it to me on the phone?

2 MEMBER LOCKEY: That's fine. 

3 (513) 558-0030. 

4 MR. KATZ: I'll call you right 

5 after this.

6 MEMBER LOCKEY: Okay. Thanks, 

7 Ted.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Well, 

9 thank you, Board Members and NIOSH, SC&A, and 

10 all others. I think we're finished.

11 MR. KATZ: Thank you, everybody.

12 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

13 matter went off the record at 12:01 p.m.)

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21